It seems that the concept of progressions (to make harder) and regressions (to make easier) of exercises has been lost in an attempt to stand out in a saturated Instagram market of coaches and trainers. This short article intends to provide some informative advice about the need for progressions and regressions of exercises and provide some examples of how I implement these into the training programmes I write.

I like to broadly categorise the exercises that I programme into three main categories:

• Baseline
• Progression
• Regression

In doing so, it means that there is a logical sequence to the development of different movement patterns. Most athletes will start with the baseline exercise; however, some athletes due to injury or inexperience may be required to immediately regress [1]. Progressions of exercises are only incorporated once the athlete shows mastery of the baseline exercise. Progression is almost always viewed as simply adding weight on the bar but it can be achieved by making the exercise more complex, or by adjusting any of the acute exercise variables (tempo, rest period, volume etc.).

‘The key is understanding that every exercise must be mastered before progressing, and mastery may entail the use of regressions from the baseline’ [1]

In an attempt to make exercises stand out on social media it seems that coaches and trainers are using exercise progressions for the sake of it (and to get more likes and views). The quote above cannot be reiterated enough – only use progressions when they are required, not simply to ‘change up the workout’. And certainly, above all, do not use a progression with an athlete who is simply not ready for it and so are at significant risk of injury whilst performing the exercise.

So what are some exercise sequences that I include in the training programmes I write?

The above table is not intended to be exhaustive. And, of course, there are nuances to the way I apply progressions/regressions that cannot be incapsulated in such a table. Nevertheless, it does provide a snapshot of some of the thinking behind exercise selection.

Ultimately, you need to be able to justify everything you put in your programme and ensure the challenge being provided by the exercise is suitable for the athlete. If you don’t know why you’re using a certain exercise for the athlete you are coaching then should you really be using it?

With Squatober in full swing and debate raging within the strength and conditioning community about the merits, or otherwise, of such a programme (squat 6 days per week for the month of October maxing out at the end of the month), it seemed only fitting to write a blog post questioning whether we should even be squatting at all if our goal is to improve athletic performance.

The Argument Against Squatting

The biggest proponent of this argument is the legendary, and given this viewpoint unsurprisingly controversial, strength and conditioning coach Mike Boyle who states:

‘The concept of relying primarily on unilateral training for the lower body is based on one simple thought (we run and jump on one leg most of the time) and one not-so simple thought, something known as the bilateral strength deficit’ [1]

The Bilateral Strength Deficit

Let’s explore this statement further by beginning with the not-so simple thought, that is, the existence of a bilateral strength deficit. So what exactly is the bilateral strength deficit?

‘The bilateral limb deficit (BLD) phenomenon is the difference in maximal or near maximal force generating capacity of muscles when they are contracted alone or in combination with the contralateral muscles. A deficit occurs when the summed unilateral force is greater than the bilateral force.’ [2]

In layman’s terms, this statement is telling us that an athlete can, on one leg, squat more than half of what they can squat on two legs. Coach Boyle’s athletes are testament to this fact – every athlete he trains can do a rear-foot elevated split squat with significantly more than half of what they can back squat [1].

The exact mechanisms behind the bilateral strength deficit remain unclear despite numerous studies: some contend that it is a neural phenomenon, some that it is a issue of stability and others that it is due to the Read more →

Having attended an extremely interesting seminar from William Wayland a couple of weeks ago, plus being in a bit of a rut with my own training, I decided to employ the Aerobic General Physical Preparedness (GPP) block, the first block of Cal Dietz’s Triphasic Training, for the past two weeks [1]. This was unlike any training I had ever previously done and, in all honesty, was a welcome break from intense lifting. But what did it involve? And did it work?

The Theory

The main goal of the Aerobic GPP block is to increase an athlete’s functional reserve range, that is, the difference between their resting heart rate and their lactate threshold. For example, an athlete with a resting heart rate of 60 beats per minute (bpm) and lactate threshold of 160bpm has a functional reserve range of 100. By simultaneously decreasing the athlete’s resting heart rate and increasing their lactate threshold, their functional reserve range is increased. An athlete with a bigger functional reserve range can handle more stress and so can train more [2].

‘There’s no such thing as tough. There’s trained and there’s untrained. Now which are you?’

Introduction

Taken from the movie ‘Man on Fire’, this quote succinctly encapsulates the argument put forward in this article – there is no such thing as mental toughness. Yes, that’s right, there is no such thing as mental toughness, or for that matter toughness in general. The argument that I put forward in this article has been lead by the work in this field that has been made by James ‘The Thinker’ Smith in his work The Governing Dynamics of Coaching [1]. By now I hope that I have your attention. Read on to find out more…

Welcome to the third and final instalment in our series on the contentious topic, ‘how young is ‘too young’ to start training’. In parts 1 and 2, we dispelled the myth that youth athletes under the age of 18 shouldn’t partake in strength and conditioning, and considered some of the key components that must be included in a youth strength and conditioning programme in order for it to be appropriate and effective. In part 3 we discuss why individualisation is so important in youth strength and conditioning and provide some practical examples of this. If you missed either part 1 or part 2 then click here to read them.

One-Size-Fits-All Gym Class

How many times have you gone into a gym and seen a class that is run with a one-size-fits-all approach?

Whilst some classes do try to differentiate within the group to cater for different ages and abilities, for the vast majority this isn’t the case…nor is it feasible in a large group with just one coach.

This is why it is crucial that youth strength and conditioning is conducted with smaller athlete to coach ratios in order to optimise youth development by being able to:

Differentiate between athletes

Ensure the emphasis is on correct technique (bigger groups result in less coach contact time per athlete meaning poor technique may slip through the net)

Issues with Chronological Age

Everyone remembers the guy at school who was a foot taller than everybody else his age and had a beard two years before anyone else? Safe to say, children all mature at different rates.

Due to the processes of growth (change in body composition or body size) and maturation (the variable timing and tempo of progressive change in the body from childhood to adulthood), it is not particularly accurate to define a stage of maturation or development by a child’s chronological age (their age in years and months) [1, 2]. Indeed, paediatric data shows that physical performance in youth athletes progresses in a nonlinear fashion due to the influence of growth and maturation [3].

A guide to rugby strength and conditioning: How strong is strong enough?

When it comes to strength and conditioning in Rugby Union, how strong is strong enough? Should the emphasis within rugby strength and conditioning be to simply make the players stronger and stronger? Or, is it possible for players to be ‘strong enough’ and therefore the emphasis of their strength and conditioning programme should be on improving other performance based attributes?

Before delving deeper into this argument it is crucial to first define strength. Rugby is a power sport where the strength that a player can express is constrained by time. What is crucial is being able to exert maximal force in as short a time as possible. It is no use being the player that has insane levels of absolute strength (maximal strength – no time constraints) if you only have the ability to express a small percentage of this strength in a match situation.

So do maximal levels of strength in rugby players not matter? No, of course they matter! Strength is crucial in laying the foundation for further athletic development, alongside being vital in injury prevention. In the early years of strength training there will be a high transfer of training from maximal strength training to rugby performance. In addition, what needs to be considered is the position of a player and thus the activities they are expected to perform during a match. As a general rule of thumb, the closer a player’s position is to the front row the stronger he/she needs to be.

However, on the other hand, once a player has been strength training for a number of years and attained a good level of maximal strength, will further maximal strength gains lead to improved performance on the pitch?

However, on the other hand, once a player has been strength training for a number of years and attained a good level of maximal strength, will further maximal strength gains lead to improved performance on the pitch? Perhaps not. Instead, the focus of this player’s S&C programme will likely be in translating these strength levels to sport-specific activities. Moreover, the biggest ability is availability. Recovery and regeneration methods become a method of training in itself – ensuring that this player is fresh and ready to perform optimally week in week out.

So how strong is strong enough? Well, it depends. It depends on the player – their position, their age, their training age, their injury history, the level of rugby they play at… the list goes on.

That’s why the Athlete Development Programme at Rigs Fitness begins with an athlete profile and needs analysis, as well as an individualised movement screen and athletic screening in order to gather as much information about the athlete before programming. We then provide bespoke, structured and evidence-based strength and conditioning support to take the guesswork out of your training and help achieve your goals.

We believe in performing fundamental movements and doing them well; no gimmicks or shortcuts. Our carefully planned, progressive and strategic approach to your training will ensure you move, feel and perform better than ever.